For the first time ever in Switzerland, a court has declared a climate lawsuit brought against a large corporation admissable: The Cantonal Court of Zug allowed all demands set out in the complaint brought by four Indonesian fishers against the Swiss cement company Holcim to proceed. This clears the way for an assessment of the merits of the case. The decision is a significant interim success for the four plaintiffs and the fight for climate justice. They are demanding compensation from Holcim for the climate damage they have suffered, financial participation in flood protection measures and a rapid reduction of CO2 emissions.
The parties presented their arguments to the Cantonal Court of Zug in a hearing at the beginning of September. The court has now made its ruling: the lawsuit is declared admissible. The court rejected Holcim's procedural objections and acknowledged that the plaintiffs deserve legal protection as people whose very existence is affected by climate change. "We are very pleased. This decision gives us the strength to continue our fight," said Ibu Asmania in an initial statement from her home on Pari Island in Indonesia: "This is good news for us and our families." The island home of the four plaintiffs is suffering increasingly from flooding, which is being caused by climate change. They filed the complaint against Holcim at the end of January 2023, as the Group has significantly contributed to climate change with its massive CO2 emissions – and continues to do so.
"Urgent and topical"
The ruling made by the Cantonal Court of Zug unequivocally rejects Holcim's main argument that decisions regarding climate protection should not be taken by courts, but only in the political arena: "Court decisions do not (replace) democratically legitimised (...) climate protection policy but complement it." This case is not about Swiss climate policy, but about the specific claims of the people from Pari Island. The statements made by the plaintiffs showed that their interest in Holcim reducing its emissions was "urgent and topical". The ruling makes it clear: Ibu Asmania, Pak Arif, Pak Edi and Pak Bobby have a right to have their case heard by a court.
The court also rejected Holcim's argument that the plaintiffs' island was doomed anyway. Instead, it clarified that "every single contribution is essential for counteracting climate change." The objection that other cement and concrete producers might generate more emissions if Holcim reduced its own emissions did not convince the court either. If the plaintiffs were to win on the merits of their case, this would on the contrary also send a message to other cement companies. And: "Harmful behaviour [is] not legitimate because others behave in the same way". The plaintiffs have thus moved an important step closer to their goal: obtaining protection for themselves and their island and a fair distribution of the burden of climate change, in which those who are actually responsible for the problem bear the costs and not the people being affected.
Confirmation of legal developments
Although this is the first time a Swiss court has ruled in favour of climate litigation, the decision made in Zug is by no means an isolated case. The legal relevance of climate change is now recognised by the world's highest courts as well as courts in numerous other countries. The development is clear: major greenhouse gas emitters are increasingly being held accountable. The ruling made by the Cantonal Court of Zug is not yet final and can be appealed to the High Court of the Canton of Zug. However, it confirms this development and makes it more difficult for large emitters to avoid having their climate responsibility examined by means of procedural objections. The ruling is therefore an important step towards greater climate justice, which Swiss Church Aid (HEKS/EPER), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights and WALHI have been advocating for a long time: major polluters causing the climate crisis should also bear responsibility for it.
